So you give it approval to the secret once, how can you be sure it wasn’t sent someplace else / persisted somehow for future sessions?

Say you gave it access to Gmail for the sole purpose of emailing your mom. Are you sure the email it sent didn’t contain a hidden pixel from totally-harmless-site.com/your-token-here.gif?

The access to the secret, the long-term persisting/reasoning and the posting should all be done by separate subagents, and all exchange of data among them should be monitored. But this is easy in principle, since the data is just a plain-text context.

I had it coding autonomously for about an hour (including lots of tool wait time) on a difficult task, and it actually produced good results.

What’s most surprising is that I had it follow a strict loop/workflow and it did that perfectly. Normally these things go off the rails after a while with complex workflows. It’s something I have to usually enforce with some orchestration script and multiple agents, but this time it was just one session meticulously following orders.

Impressive, and saves a lot of time on building the orchestration glue.

Every time this is brought up I have to go read up on it again, assuming I just didn’t get it last time.

And every time I reach the same conclusion: it's a WhatsApp/Telegram/etc wrapper for LLMs.

Until next time!

Whenever I see instances like this I can’t help but think a human is just trolling (I think that’s the case for like 90% of “interesting” posts on Moltbook).

Are we simply supposed to accept this as fact because some random account said so?

Wow, I thought it was bad, then I got to last paragraph which was really bad.

I don’t see it as the author being lazy, actually the opposite, I see it as being performative and a tryhard. Either way it’s annoying and doesn’t make me want to read it.

After looking into it, as I suspected, the author seems to make his living by selling people the feeling that they’re in the cutting edge of the AI world. Whether or not the feeling is true I don’t know, but with this in mind this performance makes sense.

I see a lot of folks are excited about this but I genuinely don’t quite get it, pretty sure I’m missing something. ELI5, why is this useful?

>prompt isolation

You mean isolating data from instructions? As far as I know this is not a solved problem, or is it?

They really should start using better models for autocorrect and autocomplete. My autocomplete is total bs

All of this performative bullshit coming out of Anthropic is slowly but surely making them my least favorite AI company.

We get it guys the very scary future is here any minute now and you’re the only ones taking it super seriously and responsibly and benevolently. That’s great. Now please just build the damn thing

These are economic studies on AI's impact on productivity, jobs, wages, global inequality. It's important to UNDERSTAND who benefits from technology and who gets left behind. Even putting the positive impacts of a study like this aside - this kinda due diligence is critical for them to understand developing markets and how to reach them.

But the thing is that they really aren't rigorous economic studies. They're a sort of UX research-like sociological study with some statistics, but don't actually approach the topic with any sort of econometric modeling or give more than loose correlations to past economic data. So it does appear performative: it's "pop science" using a quantitative veneer to push a marketing message to business leaders in a way that looks well-optimised mathematically.

Note the papers cited are nearly all ones about AI use, and align more closely with management case studies vs. economics.